Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932381AbWIPCai (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:30:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932384AbWIPCai (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:30:38 -0400 Received: from opersys.com ([64.40.108.71]:49678 "EHLO www.opersys.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932381AbWIPCah (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:30:37 -0400 Message-ID: <450B669E.4060401@opersys.com> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:51:10 -0400 From: Karim Yaghmour Reply-To: karim@opersys.com Organization: Opersys inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060804 Fedora/1.0.4-0.5.1.fc5 SeaMonkey/1.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: "Jose R. Santos" , Mathieu Desnoyers , Roman Zippel , Andrew Morton , tglx@linutronix.de, Paul Mundt , Jes Sorensen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Ingo Molnar , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Tom Zanussi , ltt-dev@shafik.org, Michel Dagenais Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108 References: <20060915111644.c857b2cf.akpm@osdl.org> <20060915181907.GB17581@elte.hu> <20060915200559.GB30459@elte.hu> <20060915202233.GA23318@Krystal> <450B164B.7090404@us.ibm.com> <20060915220345.GC12789@elte.hu> <450B29FB.7000301@opersys.com> <20060915224338.GA22126@elte.hu> <450B382C.9070202@opersys.com> <20060915235317.GA29929@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20060915235317.GA29929@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2595 Lines: 52 Ingo Molnar wrote: > nor do i reject all of LTT: as i said before i like the tools, and i > think its collection of trace events should be turned into systemtap > markups and scripts. Furthermore, it's ringbuffer implementation looks > better. So as far as the user is concerned, LTT could (and should) live > on with full capabilities, but with this crutial difference in how it > interfaces to the kernel source code. The interface to the kernel source code can be worked on. I hope my other email has demonstrated that. > i.e. could you try to just give SystemTap a chance and attempt to > integrate a portion of LTT with it ... that shares more of the > infrastructure and we'd obviously only need "one" markup variant, and > would have full markup (removal-) flexibility. I'll try to help djprobes > as much as possible. Hm? Preface: I have absolutely nothing against SystemTap. I did have a bone with the way it was developed (behind closed-doors practically), but I told the SystemTap people about this and end of story, we moved on and I've had many enjoyable discussions with the SystemTap team since. I just have a feeling that part of the team is proceeding as if ltt was dead and buried. They'd like to interface with us -- at least I think -- but nobody dares to touch ltt with a 10foot poll because it's a political hot-potato i.e. for all they care, ltt could be a liability for SystemTap because of all the fuss about it amongst kernel developers. But that's my take, I could be entirely wrong. Now, on a technical level, SystemTap cannot currently be a substitute for what the ltt patch provides, especially in terms of performance. Maybe one day it will be a substitute, with djprobe and other stuff, but it isn't *now*. Nevertheless, I'm all for encouraging a movement in a common direction. And in that regard I think that there is consensus both amongst the SystemTap team and within the ltt team -- at least I think, for having a common markers interface. This is something we can definitely build on. Hopefully dispelling some of the ltt fud and gathering some positive mantra for the ltt effort on lkml can help ease people's fears about the possibility of rubbing the kernel developers the wrong way. Karim -- President / Opersys Inc. Embedded Linux Training and Expertise www.opersys.com / 1.866.677.4546 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/